HFIN-260516-0900

Okay, I will go ahead and call this meeting of the House Finance Committee to order. And let the record reflect that the time is currently 9:08 AM on Saturday, May 16th, 2026. And present today we have Representative Allard, Representative Stapp, Representative— let's see here, I know folks are— let's see here, Representative Bynum, Representative Kucher-Schragi, Representative Kucher-Josephson, Representative Galvin, Representative Tomaszewski, Representative Hannan, Representative Co-Chair Foster, myself. And I thought I saw— let's see here. We've got— I know I saw Representative Jimmy a little while— oh, there she is.

Representative Jimmy is here. And so we've just about got our full complement here.

And just a reminder, if folks can mute their cell phones. And we have two bills before us today. That is Senate Bill 23, that is the civics education bill. We'll be taking up, I believe, a single amendment on that, or very few. And then the second bill we have is Senate Bill 24, the tobacco bill.

And the last I heard, I think I heard there was maybe a dozen amendments on that bill. We do have floor, I believe, at 10:30. 30 This morning, and I believe there will be meetings that many of us have to go to at 10, so we'll be wrapping up just before 10. And so first up, Senate Bill 23, that's the civics education bill. We've heard the bill twice, we've had invited and public testimony, we've reviewed the fiscal note, and so I'd like to invite up Mr. Tim Lampkins, staff to Senator Stevens.

And if you can put yourself on the record and just give us a very quick, brief recap of the bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. For the record, my name is Tim Lampkin, staff to Senator Stevens. I want to thank you again for bringing this bill back up before you. This bill would try to codify and bring greater attention to civics education in our state and maybe be timely insofar as we enter our semi-quincentennial celebration of the 250th anniversary of the United States of America.

It would require the Department of Education to provide a list of freely available educational resources on their website from which districts could draw from in developing their own curriculum and assessments and providing coursework for students to take in a course, a semester course, a written— traditional written exam or project-based assessments to satisfy graduation requirements. Great, thank you. And we do have a— Representative Moore is also here. And so with that, we'll jump right into the single amendment that we have, and it's by Representative Allard. Representative Allard, would you like to move?

Thank you, I move Amendment 1. Okay, and I'll object. Representative Ballard. Thank you. It's quite a simple amendment.

I've already worked with President Stevens on it and his staff. This is in regards to just allowing children that are entering the system, regardless, like the school system in Alaska, they've been assigned to other states and because they travel the world, that whether their parents are actually assigned in Alaska or if they're here with a family member and maybe their parents are assigned to like Korea, but if they're in the school system with active duty parents, the civics class is waived for them. Okay, Mr. Lampkin, Mr. Lampkin, any thoughts? Chairman. Tim Lampkin, Staff Senator Stevens, through the Chair, Representative Allard.

I'm sorry that we weren't able to connect directly on this subject matter. Since we last met, I looked up and am able to confirm that in 2009 under Governor Palin— and I knew there was something there, but I just couldn't recall. I believe I may have been the committee aide for the Education Committee at the time, but AS 1434.10 is the Interstate Compact on Educational Opportunity for Military Children. I have the statutes available here as copy for the members. It provides exactly for this type of thing.

On a broad level. The purpose of it is to remove barriers to educational success imposed on students by military families because of frequent moves and deployment of their parents. That's a quick summary of the compact. It's several, several pages, but I'm assured and want to assure you that this amendment may not be necessary, should not be necessary for this compact. Okay.

Let's see here. Let's go to Representative Galvin. Thank you, Co-Chair Foster. Mr. Lamkin, I'm sorry, I did not hear you say— could you recite the statute again? I just didn't write that down fast enough.

Mr. Lamkin, through the chair, it's AS 1434.10, and I have copies handy if you want them. Okay. Representative Ballard. Thank you, and I appreciate you bringing that forward. I'm fully aware of that, but it doesn't— it's not specific on certain educational classes, and this is very specific to this Of course.

Representative Hannon. Oh, Mr. Lepkin, did you want to make a comment? Through the chair, Representative Hannon. I appreciate that distinction. I would— I'm certain that these types of provisions are provided for in law by the compact.

I suppose rhetorically, this is a civics class, and if it's in the spirit of being overseas with their families protecting our country, that then they come home and they're waived from the requirement of understanding the country that they're protecting. Yeah. Representative Ballard. Thank you. I wish that was true.

That's why I put this amendment forward, because they would be exempt from almost every single class because of their worldly views. But not all kids go overseas. Some just remain in the States. But this particular amendment does address this very specific class. That compact doesn't actually address every single course.

It just says that there are certain other curtailments, but it's not for this specific class. I'm good. Through the chair, Representative Ballard, if it's the will of the committee, I'm sure it would be fine. I suppose if we take it to its full course, we could waive them from attending school.

Well, we wouldn't want to do that, so I appreciate that thought though. But I did speak to President Stevens about it. We spoke on the floor about it, and he was very very excited about it. So I do have his support on that. So I'd like it to go forward if the committee would let it happen.

Representative Hannan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm going to speak in opposition to the amendment, not because I'm opposed to the concept, but because it seems to not meet the— it exempts kids from the military after they've begun grade 9. So the second day of 9th grade. You are now exempted from a course that you have 4 years to complete.

The bill already has a provision on page 2 that says after— if you've transferred into the school after completing 10th grade in another state, we could add if it was after the completion of 9th grade. I think that would probably meet the.

Intent, but I, I want to point out we have a lot of people who move to Alaska who are not military parents directly, but perhaps affiliated with the military or with a variety of others. Your parents work in the oil industry and you've lived overseas and now you've transferred to Alaska. So I think exempting people because we think logistically you don't have time to achieve this credit in the 4 years of high school. I think 10th grade still— I think 10th grade is adequate, but if the committee felt that you needed to lower it to after completing your first year of high school, in the next 3 years you couldn't meet this requirement, that would be a more appropriate place to put it, not simply after you've begun 9th grade year, because literally that means it could be the second day of your 9th grade year and you really have 4 years to complete it. And I think exempting people on a wholesale class because you weren't here— we need to accommodate the variety of people who move to our state with mandatory transfer orders in a variety of federal jobs and international jobs for large corporations.

So I will be opposed to the amendment as written, but would be open to changing the language in the bill to completion of 9th grade if the member felt that met their need, that in the 4 years that they wouldn't have a full 4 years to achieve the requirement to graduate in Alaska. Representative Ballard. Thank you, I appreciate that. I just, you know, it's Military Appreciation Month and these are our kids that they don't have a choice. So if you work for a major corporation and your parents drive around and stuff, that's one thing, but this is where you can't just say no.

If your parents have orders, you have to go. And I will tell you, I know kids that have moved upwards of 7 times while in high school. So I hope everybody will support the military kids. Okay, I've got Representative Bynum and then Galvin. Representative Bynum.

Thank you, Co-Chair Foster. Appreciate the opportunity to ask a few questions here through the chair to Representative Allard. I'm just trying to grasp what we're actually trying to do. It appears that what we're doing is that we want to— that we're exempting students from 9th grade on if they're part of the military family basically having to move about? Is that what we're trying to accomplish with this amendment?

I'm sorry, didn't quite understand. Representative Ballard. Correct, it is if a military family has assignment up into Alaska and they've been relocated, it's only for active duty. I know that there was a moment that the Legal had put in the National Guard and I took them out. It is very specific only to active duty kids that are on current military orders.

Representative Bynum.

Thank you. Through the chair, I'm just— I understand that we might say that there is a challenge for maybe making the requirements if I transferred into the school, say for example, in the 11th late in the 11th grade and only had a year left. But the law does allow for a student to just do a civics test assessment to qualify. Representative Ballard. Thank you.

I appreciate that. And that's correct. This isn't about they can't finish the course in time. It's about the fact that they actually— I would put my military daughters up against anybody with their knowledge. The amount of knowledge they have just by traveling the world was quite amazing.

So I just— that is what this is zeroed into. It's not that they can't complete the course necessarily, but it is more so that they just have the knowledge already.

I'm waiving the clipping out. That's what this order does. If they want to take the class, they can, but they're not mandatory to. That's all. Representative Bynum.

Thank you, Co-Chair Foster. And I'm not trying to debate through the chair to Representative Allard, just trying to understand But if the student already possesses the necessary knowledge that because of their extensive travel experience or their parents assisting them with that because of their nature of their condition or circumstance, wouldn't they be able to just take and pass the assessment? May I? Representative Ballard. They could, but this amendment would say they don't have to.

Thank you. Okay. Representative Gelvin. Thank you. So I was very curious to know more about the federal interstate compact on educational opportunity for military children.

And I do want to say that the reason I will not be supporting this, because I think it's— this amendment is extra. It is pretty clear in here, the Interstate Compact on Educational Opportunity. If I may read a couple of lines, uh, Co-chairman—. Representative Goldman. Thank you.

It says, it is the purpose of this compact to remove barriers to educational success imposed on military— on children of military families because of the frequent moves and deployment of their parents, um, by— and then it goes on to list many of the different things that intended to do, including facilitating timely enrollment, ensuring that placement process is not disadvantaged, grading course content, et cetera. So there is a space in here in order to facilitate on-time graduation of military families, and states and local government agencies shall incorporate the following procedures. And here's where I think it kind of clarifies that they certainly should and would be given the appropriate opportunity to, to opt out. It says waiver requirements. That is one of the following procedures.

Local education agency administrative officials shall waive Specific courses required for graduation. If, you know, then it goes on to different opportunities, even exit exams. They shall waive or accept certain ones that they've already taken elsewhere or proven up that elsewhere they've understood content. So I feel like this properly, it's absolutely correct to do this. That it is looking after the military children who do— I think that the average stay in each location is 2 years.

Rep. Allard may know more about that, but I know that they don't stay in any one location very long. So it's very difficult on military children. And anyway, for that reason, because I think it's protected in the compact, I will be a no vote on this. Wrap up, Representative Ballard. Thank you.

I just look for everybody to support the amendment and the military kids on this one, and it's for certain course. And I know I've read that over and over, spoke to legal about things, went through this with my daughters. It's not very specific to certain— it's up to the administration when they say shall. It's which classes are those, and it doesn't— it's not specific in the, um, what you just read. So thank Thank you.

Okay. Representative Hannan, do you maintain your objection? The objection is maintained. Madam Clerk, we are going to call the roll for Amendment Number 1 to Senate Bill 23. Please call the roll.

Representative Allard. Yes. Representative Bynum. Pass. Representative Stapp.

Yes. Representative Jimmy. No. Representative Hannan. No.

Representative Moore. Yes. Representative Galvin. No. Representative Tomaszewski.

Yes. Representative Bynum. Yes. Representative Schraggy. No.

Representative Josephson. No. Representative Foster. No. 5 Yea, 6 nay.

So on a vote of 5 yea to 6 nay, Amendment Number 1 has not been adopted. Do we have any questions for the sponsor of the bill before I entertain a motion? Representative Elliott. May I just say a quick comment too? I just want to remind the body that we do have a bill that's coming.

It's HB 258. I know that Representative Stapp is working on it because the compact isn't strong enough and there's some flaws and there's some things that we need to get fixed. So I appreciate everybody's vote. Thank you. Okay, and with that, Representative Sharagi, I would entertain a motion to move the bill if it's If it is the desire of the committee.

Thank you, Co-Chair Foster. Just making sure I have correct motion here. Looks like I do. Co-Chair Foster, I move SB 23, Work Order 34-LS0259/o, out of committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal note. House Finance Committee authorizes Legislative Legal to make any technical and conforming changes.

Okay, do we have any objections? Hearing none, Senate Bill 23, which is version 34-LS0259/o, moves out of committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal note. House Finance Committee authorizes legislative legal to make any technical and conforming changes as necessary. Please do sign the committee report. Mr. Lambkin, any comments?

Thank you. No. Okay, and please pass our thanks on to the senator for bringing the bill forward, and we'll sign the committee report. We did have one member.

Who just needed Steph out briefly and asked that we just delay for a moment before we jump into amendments, so I'm going to take a brief at ease.

Okay, I'll call House Finance back to order, and we are now moving on to the, uh, tobacco bill, that is Senate Bill HB 24, the e-cigarette tax bill. We heard this bill 3 times in committee. We've had invited and public testimony. We have reviewed the fiscal notes. We do have 17 amendments.

And so with that, Mr. Lampkin, if you can just give us a brief recap again. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the record, Tim Lampkin, staff to Senator Stevens. Before you is the latest iteration of many years of work on the area of Vaping, and in an effort to address an epidemic of our youth in our state being exposed to, initiated, and addicted to nicotine, largely by a massive industry trying to do so for profit. Okay.

Thank you. Representative Hannon, you have Amendment Number 1. I move Amendment 1. Okay. Representative Hannon.

So Amendment 1 lowers the fine for possession of tobacco or an electronic smoking product. Vapes, or product containing nicotine by a person under 21 years of age, and it lowers the fine from $300 to $100. I want to make sure we are not severely punishing kids who are addicted to substances that have been peddled to them. It would—. Yeah, my focus, and I think our focus, should be on prevention and education.

So I ask for your support in lowering the fine. Mr. Lemkin. Through the chair, Representative Hannon, appreciate this area, this policy area of the bill. This is in regard to what's commonly known as the PUP laws, which is purchase, use, and possession. I would, I would point out that in the bill, and generally speaking, violations that are referred to in statute, if there is not a specific amount referred to in statute that that amount is up to $500.

I want to stress up to. This bill over the years is currently is $300 up to, or rather it states not more than. And so the question, I suppose, is should the, the fine, the maximum fine at least exceed the value of the products that they're being fined for? We're agnostic on the level of this fine. Previously, we had negotiated to bring that down to $150.

That was our last compromise that we had made. I believe on behalf of Senator Stevens that $100 may be a bit too low, but that is arguable. Okay, Representative Josephson. I would move a conceptual amendment to Amendment 1. Conceptual Amendment 1 to 1 would be to make the fine $200.

Okay, we have Conceptual Amendment Number 1. Is there an objection? Checked. We have an objection. And Representative Staff.

Yeah, I mean, this is insane policy, Co-Chair Foster. Like, we're talking about these troopers going around fining people under the age of 21 for smoking. Like, why would we do that? That's, that's not T21. T21 bans the sale of tobacco products to individuals under 21.

We're going to ask municipal governments and, and in this case, state troopers to go out and fine kids for vaping. I mean, whether it's $300 or $200, obviously lower the fine is the better, but it's just kind of a silly policy and we shouldn't do it. So I'm not going to support an increase to an amendment that lowers the fine. Thanks. Okay.

And any further discussion on conceptual amendment number 1 to amendment number 1? Representative Yelvan. I just have a question for the maker of the bill. Given the comments I've just heard, how is this implemented? I don't know how that works.

Mr. Lampkin. Through the chair, Representative Galvin, I'd like to point out, first of all, that this bill largely is conforming language for existing statute, and it has been on the books for perhaps decades at $500 as it is right now for tobacco and OTP, other tobacco products. With what's not covered, what this bill does is bring in vaping products in alignment with existing law for cigarettes, cigars, zen pouches, every other thing except vaping. And so, okay, it's considerably lowering it for all the other things. It's— so the messaging is that all the other things are $500, but it's okay.

And minus— we should lower the vaping. Fine question. Representative Galvin, follow up. So I'm now getting to the $200 number. You had mentioned that at one point there was some negotiation where there was agreement on $150.

And in— I guess to be respectful of what you mentioned about the fine not exceeding— or the fine exceeding the value of the product, I have no idea what the value of any of these products are. So is $150 or $200 more representative of that? If you could share that. Mr. Lampkin. Through the chair, Representative Galvin, I don't— the values vary greatly.

That's as we wade into these waters of the tax levels shortly, as we'll find.

And so it's highly negotiable, it's highly subjective, this number that we're debating. I would also point out that, like, similar to the fact that troopers aren't out on the streets pulling kids off and writing them a ticket on the sidewalk— that just doesn't happen, and I have courts here to verify this— there is some data available that more often than not, in the few, maybe a few dozen annually statewide that this happens, it's most typically— and this is Maybe it was a previous bill, they're blurring together, but over the years I've had principals testify that when these occurrences happen, it's when there's a group of students that go off campus just to the smoking area, just at the— off the perimeter of the campus. And that when it becomes too much of a problem, the principal calls in a police officer to maybe have a sting to discipline them all as a group, and that's when you find clusters of citations. It's certainly not happening that random students are pulled over on the street. It's just not there.

Follow-up, if I may. Representative Galvin. And has there been consideration of community service? I'm thinking of kids. So, you know, instead of the fine, that there might be an option for minors to have community service for those who are found in possession, you know, because I could imagine sometimes that's And perhaps that's a learning opportunity for them as well.

Through the chair, Ms. McAlvin, thank you for that question. That is a key component that's in the bill that would refer to or give a judge, in the event that a court appearance actually happens, which is not often either, that given the circumstances, the judge has great latitude. One option being to take an educational course in the spirit of community service. And there's quite a list of existing programs that that exist currently. And I think a policy such as this would help spur and creatively spur more programs to come online.

Wonderful. Thank you. Okay. And just a reminder, we are, we are on conceptual amendment number 1 to amendment number 1, which takes the number to 200. And I've got Representative Allard, then Bynum.

Representative Allard. Yeah, I would just leave it the way it is. I'm not going to support this amendment, but I just want to remind everybody, these aren't kids. These are adults, and if you do something that you're not supposed to be doing, you should get fined for it. Or like, um, the chief of staff said, they have— there's a community service they can do, kind of like if you travel around the world and you're a kid and you're military, you know, you should get credit for some things.

So I think this is great. Thank you. Okay, Representative Bynum. Thank you, uh, Co-Chair Foster. I was just going to bring a point of information.

I think we're under a conceptual amendment 1 to Amendment 1, which is just changing the number, and I would hope that we could confine our conversation to whether it should be 100 or 200 until we get back to the underlying amendment. Thank you. Anybody else on Conceptual Amendment Number 1? I—. If I may, I would like to hear from the maker of the amendment whether this would be a friendly conceptual amendment or not.

No, I object. Okay, thank you. Okay, I don't hear any further discussion on Amendment Number 1, so we'll do wrap-up. Representative, uh, Josephson, conceptual Amendment Number 1. Uh, yes, 3 points I want to raise.

First, I want to clarify for Representative Ballard, if you want to keep it the way it is, you would need an amendment to the CS to increase it to $500. I just don't agree with your amendment. All right. Thank you. I appreciate that.

So there are 3 principal reasons for my amendment. The first is it's a not more than $200, so it could be $100. The second is a reduction to $200 is a 60% reduction. That's a very, very large reduction. And I—.

One could argue that it's not good policy itself. And the third is something that really stuck with me, and that is when a parent says it's illegal, you want to be able to, you know, have the law reflect that.

You know, I think about this debate over the Ten Commandments. There are like two of them that are really in the law, and I think it leaves people wondering, what are these other eight about? I mean, it's not— it's an imperfect analogy, of course, but I just think that if it's something that we prescribe, let's prescribe it. Thank you. Okay.

And the objection is maintained, I assume, Representative Stepp? Yes. Okay. The objection is maintained. We are on conceptual amendment number 1 to amendment number 1.

Madam Clerk, if you can please call the roll. Representative Moore. No. Representative Hannan? No.

Representative Allard? Yes.

Representative Galvin? No. Representative Bynum? No. Representative Jimmy?

No. Representative Tomaszewski? No. Representative Stapp? No.

Representative Schraggy? Yes. Representative Josephson? Yes. Representative Foster?

No. 3 Yea, 8 nay. And so on a vote of 3 yea to 8 nay, conceptual amendment number 1 to amendment number 1 is not adopted. That takes us back to the main amendment. And further discussion?

Representative Bynum? Thank you, Co-Chair Foster. I appreciate the concept of amendment 1 where we're trying to alleviate the cost or penalty associated with the— with being found in possession of the tobacco product under the age of 21. I, for one, am not in favor of criminalizing possession by an individual beyond what's already in current statute. I believe that I am in full support of the intent of the law to raise the age to 21.

To apply the e-products, e-cigarette products, as a taxable item. I'm in favor of fining distributors when they violate the law, 21. I'm in favor of the federal law, of being in line with that. But I am not in favor of criminalizing the possession. I believe it creates an opportunity for contextual stops.

That expands an opportunity for a police officer to engage with people based on— in general public based on their age. And so I don't agree with it. So I offer Conceptual Amendment 1 to— Conceptual Amendment 2 to 1, which would remove Sections 2 and 3 effectively not creating a criminal activity for being under the age of 21, for the expansion of the age of 21, and leaving in place the current law for the age requirements. Mr. Lampkin? I object.

Okay. Mr. Lampkin? Through the Chair, President Bynum, I think your conceptual amendment has much greater implications than perhaps your intent.

I'd like to back up a little bit and, and just suggest and/or opine that when it comes to the PUP laws— purchase, use, and possession— that this is a tool for deterrence by our teachers, our parents, our churches, other public and private organizations that are saying it's, it's illegal or wrong to smoke pot, drink alcohol, to violate your curfew, to have a speeding ticket, to fish in the wrong river or hunt in the wrong unit. But it's okay to have a smoke or a vape. And so if, if in the spirit of your conceptual amendment, I would suggest that by eliminating the possession laws entirely, The state is saying that it's okay to do those other— it's wrong to do those other things, but it's okay to have a smoke or a vape. That's a signal. We're taking that tool away from our schools, our parents, and so forth.

That's sort of a rhetorical discussion. It is a policy of the state. It has been for many, many years as regards tobacco, marijuana, alcohol, and so forth. This would just be conforming language to existing law to apply to vapes. Okay.

And Representative Bynum, and then we'll go to Representative Hannan, who had the objection. Representative Bynum. Thank you, Co-Chair Foster. I want to clarify that I'm not proposing repealing existing law. What I'm proposing is— or what the conceptual amendment does is that it leaves current law in place.

So we're not messing with current law. But what the— what this bill is doing is, is it is raising the age where the possession becomes a crime. And that I object to. And that's what the conceptual amendment does. Okay.

And Representative Hannon, you had the objection. Yes. Possession is already a crime.

I don't—. If the bill passes, it will increase the age range of illegal possession of tobacco from under 18. It will add in 19- and 21-year-olds, thus conforming with federal law. It will also add into the possession.

Violations, vaping and synthetic tobacco products that are currently not. So right now, a kid with a cigarette is in violation of law, but a kid with a vape product is not.

I am somebody who— I don't— I don't want there to be a large punishment. I don't want there to be a mandatory court appearance. I don't want kids to go to jail or 19-year-olds to go to jail for having Tobacco, snuff, chew, zinn. But if it's against the law, I want there to be a fine, but I think a nominal fine of $100. Now, for the youngest offenders, the 12-year-old, the 14-year-old, who are highly price sensitive, that should be a deterrent.

That should be enough. For an addicted 19-year-old who's already been vaping for 5 years, it's not a deterrent, but it's certainly going to be inconvenient. And so I'm opposed to doing away with the law entirely of not having a punishment, but I want it to be— to get the attention but not create any other sort of black market undercurrents. And with regard— because initially there was a conversation of equal to the price of a product. I mean, these fines are associated with tobacco, so it could be a single cigarette.

It could be a $100 vape apparatus, but it, it's more likely that it's a very cheap disposable vape apparatus if you're a 14-year-old smoker or a 19-year-old. And that's why I'm going to be opposed to withdrawing to Conceptual Amendment 2, because I think it overreaches. But that's why I'm opposed to Conceptual Amendment 2. Representative Stepp and then just—. Yes, thank you, Commissioner Foster.

I don't—. This does not— so this amendment, I don't know the details, conceptual, but that would put us more in alignment with the federal conforming to T21. T21 does not criminalize the use of tobacco under the age of 21. And I don't know if I need to call up Ms. Nancy Mead to verify that in front of the committee just so we have all our information straight. Constraint, but like currently in federal law, it's not a crime to use tobacco under the age of 21.

And I don't know if I can bring up Ms. Nancy Mead. Ms. Mead.

Good morning. If you can put yourself on the record. Good morning. Thank you. Nancy Mead, General Counsel for the Alaska Court System.

Through the chair to Representative Stapp, I actually think Mr. Lampkin is probably more attuned with what the federal law does than I am. Mr. Lampkin, through the chair, Representative Stapp, the federal government is silent on possession, use, and purchase.

Representative Stapp, that's the answer. Thanks. Okay. I've got Representative Josephson, Galvin, and Hannan. Representative Josephson.

Yes, actually, for Ms. Mead, if I might. Ms. Mead, there's a lot of discussion, probably 6 or 10 times this morning, about crimes. Now, I understand there could be criminality under the bill, uh, if one sells a product to a 20-year-old. I, I sort of like a Title IV Furnishing. I—.

Maybe you need to clarify that, but most of what's being discussed here is not a crime. It's either a violation or infraction. Am I right about that? If, if I get a ticket for speeding 10 miles over the limit, I don't tell my wife I committed a crime. It's sort of in that vein, isn't it?

Ms. Mead, through the chair, to Representative Josephson. You're correct. There is nothing criminalized in any of the provisions, even for vendors. They are violations As Mr. Lampkin said, a violation has a fine up to $500. It is not a crime.

You don't get a public defender. You don't get a jury trial. It is a minor offense, just like a speeding ticket. Thank you. Okay.

In line, I've got Representative Galvin, Hannon, and Allard. Representative Galvin. Thank you, Co-Chair Foster. Through the chair, Ms. Mead, with relation to Alaska state law, Have we had on the books that possession of a 15-year-old with alcohol or with cigarettes and so forth, has that been in our laws? Is there anything in our state law?

Through the chair to Representative Galvin, yes. We have AS 15060, maybe, is the minor consuming or possessing alcohol laws, and that applies to those under 21. Those are also violations as of a few years ago. They used to be more criminal. And yes, possession of tobacco, including vapes and products containing nicotine, have been a violation— tobacco since 1988.

The vapes and nicotine were added several years ago, I believe 2022. Great. She already answered my second question, which is for how long have we had that on the books. So I appreciate that. Thank you.

Representative Hannon? Nope, same question. Okay. Representative Allard? Nope, want to move on.

Okay. So we are on conceptual amendment number 2 to amendment number 1, and we've got Representative Jimmy. Yes, just thank you, Co-Chair Foster. Just to clarify and get on record, how much is a speeding ticket for your first offense? Uh, me through the chair, uh, it, uh, to Representative Jimmy, it depends on how many miles over the speed limit you are.

And actually, in highway zones, they're doubled. But, um, I could find it if you gave me a second. I actually have all the bail schedules, but my speeding ticket, I believe, was $180. $180. Thank you.

Okay, and we'll go to wrap-up. Representative Bynum. Thank you, Co-Chair Foster. I think through the discussion we have identified the fact that this amendment, which I can have distributed if you like, but what it doesn't do is it doesn't take away the definition of the e-products. They are all still in there.

What it doesn't do is it doesn't take away or strip away the fines that are in place currently. For, for kids that are 19 or under the current law. What the amendment does is it doesn't expand the scope of the age. The federal law is not about possession. The federal law is prohibiting the sale.

And I think that's a good thing. It's holding sellers accountable for selling products to people that are under 21. Uh, we are talking about adults, uh, here. We're not talking about 17-year-olds. We're talking about 20-year-olds.

And what the— this current law is doing is it is expanding the scope and reach of criminality. Now, when we say, well, it's not a crime, uh, In the statute— or I'm sorry, in the bill here on page 3, we do refer to those receiving violations as defendants. You do have a right to a court.

You are expanding the scope in which you're having interactions with law enforcement. And I don't think that we should be doing that for the mere possession of a cigarette. Now, if you're on a school campus and you see somebody on the school campus and it's smoke-free, and the public safety officer on the campus sees that person and they look like they're a student, it's probably appropriate to contact that student and, you know, make sure they're— number one, they're a student and they're underage. They're in possession of tobacco. We currently do that now.

But if I'm walking down the street out here and I'm smoking a cigarette and a police officer looks over and he thinks you look maybe 20, he has a right to stop you, identify you, and engage with you. And I don't think we should be expanding in law that So I won't support doing that. I support this amendment and I won't support the bill if we move forward with it in there. So that's why I'm offering the amendment. Okay.

And Representative Hannan, do you maintain your objection? I do. And I, I suspect we should probably have— because this, although it was offered as a conceptual amendment, It's entirely different, right? So dealing with the dollar amount, which was my very narrow amendment. So I think perhaps we are not understanding completely Representative Bynum's, quote, conceptual amendment, which takes it in a different direction than reducing the fine.

Can I have a brief edis? Representative Bynum, before we go into edis, one thing we could do is.

I'm just about to recess, we could distribute your amendment so that folks can see it in writing, and then when we come back, folks will by that time have a better opportunity to look at it. So did you still want the briefings? Yeah. Okay. No, no, no.

Okay, so we'll go ahead and do that. We're going to recess. Oh, Chair, I got a question. Representative Ballard, could—. Is it possible that Representative Bynum might be able to get some sort of legal Well, they're going to write it, right?

It's already drafted. Oh, okay. Never mind. Okay. So we'll go ahead and distribute that.

And I am going to recess. Representative— or Mr. Lampkin, do you have any comments? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Tim Lampkin, top center Stevens. Before we recess and set the bill aside for some time, I want to point out that you should have in your file by now a current and most recent letter of support on this matter from AASB, the Alaska Association of School Boards, as well as the Matsu Health Foundation.

Thank you. Great, thank you. Okay, so with that, um, we will go ahead and recess House Finance at 9:56 AM.